was it forbidden to make pictures above ISO1600??These pics can be made by every pretty good camera.

At the Photokina I tried the NX1, at the cameramonitor it had better pics at ISO12800 as my E-M5 with ISO6400.To make a compareson at lower, usefull ISOs, you need a bigger and better screen (a computer).(Or Dpreview...)

@Just a Photographer - It's not a matter of a thing to hide. But common sense and courtesy.Many people around the Internet DO NOT read and/or understand things properly. DPReview tried to state very clearly that the camera IS NOT final production thus image quality may not be final. And that holds true for any camera manufacturer. Fine adjustments on image engine are done during the very final stages.

However, most people would see those images and say "Oh, this is sooo bad! I'm not going to buy that camera!". And then the damage is done and even if the FINAL camera is way better, the camera/manufacturer already is affected for a wrong impression caused by lack of understanding from people.

Higher ISOs are probably very bad right now and Samsung doesn't feel comfortable showing them to people for that stated reason.

was it forbidden to make pictures above ISO1600??These pics can be made by every pretty good camera.

At the Photokina I tried the NX1, at the cameramonitor it had better pics at ISO12800 as my E-M5 with ISO6400.To make a compareson at lower, usefull ISOs, you need a bigger and better screen (a computer).(Or Dpreview...)

"At Samsung's request, all images in this gallery are from within the range ISO 100-1600, (...)"

The thing is: right now Samsung is the only company with the re$ource$ to put some pressure on Sony (talking about sensor development here).

Sony right now has, probably, the best sensors out there. Proof is that most camera manufacturers use them. Even so, it's always good and healthy that there are competition and competitors; and a strong competitor, like Samsung. This way Sony doesn't get accommodated (Canon, anyone?) and can keep still improving.

Sante Patate: "Digital" sensors are analog devices - each pixel produces a voltage which is converted to a number by the A/D converter (http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/digitalimaging/cmosimagesensors.html) True digital sensors, that actually count photons, exist but are a ways from consumer use.

Sante Patate: "Digital" sensors are analog devices - each pixel produces a voltage which is converted to a number by the A/D converter (http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/digitalimaging/cmosimagesensors.html) True digital sensors, that actually count photons, exist but are a ways from consumer use.

Care to develop more or link to an article that explains more the difference between both, on practical terms?

All jokings aside, did anyone ever test those cameras to see if image quality-wise there was any difference? Or if the design, even if very questionable (not to say 'ugly'), is functional?

Because AFAIK even those Panasonic rebadged Leica cams have some difference here and there (not that that justify the hefty price but just out of curiosity). So I was wondering whether that could've been the case with those HasSony cameras.

neo_nights: Don't miss those Hassy cameras so much. As I'd commented on SAR, there's always some marketing "genius" loose out there, wishing to convince companies that those "luxurious" and "unique" cameras are a good way to go.

So, those guys are fired today but they'll soon find their way somewhere else :)(Pentax/Ricoh, anyone?)

But those aren't made of wood, leather or any exotic material. That doesn't count as much :(

neo_nights: Don't miss those Hassy cameras so much. As I'd commented on SAR, there's always some marketing "genius" loose out there, wishing to convince companies that those "luxurious" and "unique" cameras are a good way to go.

So, those guys are fired today but they'll soon find their way somewhere else :)(Pentax/Ricoh, anyone?)

Maybe now Pentax and Hasseblad can exchange their geniuses? Heheheheh!

Don't miss those Hassy cameras so much. As I'd commented on SAR, there's always some marketing "genius" loose out there, wishing to convince companies that those "luxurious" and "unique" cameras are a good way to go.

So, those guys are fired today but they'll soon find their way somewhere else :)(Pentax/Ricoh, anyone?)

marc petzold: nothing bad meant - but the two first woman pictures could have been made with any other camera, too..there's no special "Leica" Feeling from it, either way - also, these compositions are in nothing short any kind of something special, no offence...the 2nd picture also looks like blown out highlights into the hairs of the model, too.

I've never used a Leica (and don't bother looking at Leica's pictures on the web) so I can't say much about what to expect from a 'Leica look'.

But about your comment on the girls' pictures: yes, you are right that they aren't anything special. And I honestly think that they weren't supposed to be anything special either.

Sometimes, when shooting models, it's normal to make some 'silly' shots just to check camera's exposure and settings, to loosen up the model a bit and so on.

Probably those pictures he showed here fit in that case. Also, even if those pictures weren't great in a technical/artsy point of view, they were good enough to show us his points on the camera's flaws.

The New Zealand team perform the Haka after winning the Cup Final between England and New Zealand during the 2014 Hong Kong Sevens at Hong Kong International Stadium on March 30, 2014 in Hong Kong, Hong Kong. (Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)

Wow.

Did someone mention Hong Kong? Or did I miss something about Hong Kong?